September 27, 2005

In a calm, deliberate voice, England recounted how her relationship with Graner, 14 years her senior, developed as they prepared for deployment to Iraq with the 372nd Military Police Company in 2003.

"He was very charming, funny and at the time it looked to me like he was interested in the same things I was. ... He made me feel good about myself," she said. "I trusted him and I loved him. ... Now I know it was just an act to lure me in."

I agree with you she has to take responsibility for her own actions. I do think she got the shaft though. Not because she was found guilty (she was) but because Graner got off easier than she did. He is pond scum.

Doesn't the phrase "the buck stops here" have to do more with who ultimately has to make difficult decisions in an Administration (like using nuclear weapons) than it has to do with who should absorb punishment whenever something happens in the world? I think the meaning has shifted over time, much like paring of "carrot and stick."

The media interpreted Harry's sign to mean he was accepting responsibility, but he may well have had something else in mind. Truman was a poker player. He knew exactly what the "buck" was -- it was the marker that identifies the person who calls the game, or in essence, sets the rules. Truman may have been saying that he was in charge and would set the rules - a bit different than just accepting responsibility. (via)

"...It is about the atmosphere created by Gonzalez' now infamous 2002 memo and other actions taken by commanding officers, not only at Abu Graib but elsewhere as well...."

How far should we spread the blame? Based on your logical conclusion, I would argue that Clinton is far more responsible for 9-11 than Gonzolez is for Abu Garib. After all Clinton perpetuated the environment that allowed 9-11 to occur.

And there are no quick trips through prisons. Having toured (no really -- just toured -- honest! Monopoly fashion Just visiting) my share of Texas prisons; each tour -- while fascinating -- had a bit of "when are we going to get the hell out of here?" to it. Except for the high security cells -- those guys always gave a good show for my classes. Echo Pod -- bldg. 12 William Clements Unit -- thanks for the memories.

Right, it’s all about the atmosphere that is created at the top. Because Gonzalez and John Yoo explored the legal limits defining the distinctions between torture and interrogation, it caused Lyddie England to put troops in a dogpile and take pictures of it for fun.

That would explain why I kept having urges to employ cigars as sex toys and sexually harass my female troops while I was on active duty in the Army, while Clinton was POTUS. It sure would explain Tailhook, too. The attitudes of the President and his legal team’s deliberation clearly have a cause/effect relationship on what the troops do.

Oh wait a minute, sorry, now that I think about it, I didn’t sexually harass my troops or employ cigars in extracurricular activities. Sorry, I must have confused what I read in the NY Times this morning, with what actually happened in the real world.

If you really believe that it was limited to England and that the atmosphere from Rumsfeld on down had nothing to do with it, or that it was an aberration, then why is this still going on? Brando also linked to this.

Lynndie England, Charles Graner and that crew have long since departed anyplace where they could mistreat any prisoners, so clearly what the NYT revealed this past Saturday has to be considered as part of a deeper problem (and therefore one with roots farther up the chain of command).